Should it be Illegal to Indoctrinate Kids With Religion?

[Nakosis]

“Religion should remain a private endeavor for adults,” says Giovanni Santostasi, PhD, who is a neuroscientist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and runs the 10,000 person strong Facebook group Scientific Transhumanism. “An appropriate analogy of religion is that’s it’s kind of like porn—which means it’s not something one would expose a child to.”

Some Atheists and Transhumanists are Asking: Should it be Illegal to Indoctrinate Kids With Religion? | HuffPost

Make it illegal to bring kids to church until they're 18? Until they have developed some rational skepticism?
Constitutionally in the US can't do this, if we could though, would it be a good idea?

Why or why not?

 

[Mister Silver]

Make it illegal to bring kids to church until they're 18? Until they have developed some rational skepticism?
Constitutionally in the US can't do this, if we could though, would it be a good idea?

Why or why not?

Even though I fully advocate for making it illegal to religiously indoctrinate children, perhaps the better solution would be to ensure children (perhaps an age limit should be applied where they wait until they are teenagers) are taught comparative religions, including non-religious lines of thought, instead of a single religion to which the family personally adheres. Learning about multiple religions, without it being driven into their minds that only one is correct, they can choose for themselves what to believe, or not believe, through proper study and critical thinking.

 

[PureX]

It should be illegal in extreme instances, where the "indoctrination" constituted psychological abuse.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Much what PureX said, "indoctrination" needs a definition. Because a basic Social Studies class could be considered indoctrination.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

I don't think small children should be forced into religion, but when they are older (not 18 but perhaps 14 or even 12) they can choose their religion or lack thereof. However most parents want their kids to grow up with religion so they can be better people. I don't think it is wise to hide children from religion. On the contrary exposing children to different religions can be beneficial, regardless of how they are being brought up.

 

[Akivah]

No.

It's not the state's job to usurp child rearing from their parents.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm not keen on giving the state that much power. Instances of extreme indoctrination should already be covered under existing Child Abuse statutes. The thing is, who decides what is extreme? Me? You? Donald Trump? This is a slippery slope that I'm not comfortable seriously considering.

 

[DavidFirth]

Of course not. Even if it were illegal, people would do it anyway, I know I would.

 

[PureX]

Much what PureX said, "indoctrination" needs a definition. Because a basic Social Studies class could be considered indoctrination.

I don't think it's the content of the "indoctrination" that matters so much as the methodology. You can tell a kid whatever nonsense you want, but if that kid is being socialized with other kids, and is not being severely punished for "disbelieving" it, then I think we need to respect the freedom of the parents to tech them what they will. If, however, the child is being isolated and severely punished for "doubting the teaching", then I think it becomes psychological abuse and the government would have to step in and put a stop to it.

 

[Sunstone]

Inform a child about the world's various religions? Of course. Indoctrinate? That's an evil.

Unfortunately, it's not one of those evils that a government can do to much about without risking tyranny.

 

[sun rise]

The real question behind the OP is "should we have an all powerful government with secret agents and spies everywhere enforcing the whims of the rulers"? Because that is what the question is. And the only real way to enforce this is to raise kids in government approved foster homes. And since "indoctrination" could occur by watching certain TV or internet programs, that too has to be strictly regulated by the agents of the state.

 

[Vee]

“Religion should remain a private endeavor for adults,” says Giovanni Santostasi, PhD, who is a neuroscientist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and runs the 10,000 person strong Facebook group Scientific Transhumanism. “An appropriate analogy of religion is that’s it’s kind of like porn—which means it’s not something one would expose a child to.”

Some Atheists and Transhumanists are Asking: Should it be Illegal to Indoctrinate Kids With Religion? | HuffPost

Make it illegal to bring kids to church until they're 18? Until they have developed some rational skepticism?
Constitutionally in the US can't do this, if we could though, would it be a good idea?

Why or why not?

View attachment 18759

I would agree to not allow kids to have contact with religion until they are 18 if they were also not allowed to have any contact or notion of:
- Bad food habits
- Violence
- Social media
- Alcohol
- Drugs
- Tobaco
- Sex, including any variety of porn

If we want to protect children, let's just stop the hypocrisy and be serious about it!

 

[Nakosis]

I neither encourage nor discouraged religious belief in my kids. I felt that this was something they should choose for themselves.

18 maybe a little to conservative, perhaps around 13, if they had shown any interest I would let them choose to go to church.

I'm actually wonder if there are any benefits to encouraging religious belief at an early age.

I was told at an early age that Christianity was the truth. I was well into adulthood before thinking to question these beliefs and was a little upset that I was never encouraged to question this "truth".

I now have two grandkids, 1 and 3, very impressionable. I see little benefit of impressing on them any form of religious belief. They will grow up fine without it and likely possess a more objective view of reality.

I really have no problem allowing them to pursue a religion of their choosing when they are capable of rationally making such a decision.

However, I see no benefit in encouraging religious belief. It seems totally unnecessary for them to grow up to be good, decent people.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Make it illegal to bring kids to church until they're 18? Until they have developed some rational skepticism?
Constitutionally in the US can't do this, if we could though, would it be a good idea?

That is called a state church and state religion. It is no different from requiring every child to attend the same church, and the result will be the same. It is as effective as putting a coat of paint over 2 inch thick rust. What you really want, freedom of thought, is achieved only through the exercise of freedom of thought. Its a long process, and we are all on the road trying to get there right now. Patient discussion is the slow patented process that works.

 

[Nakosis]

The real question behind the OP is "should we have an all powerful government with secret agents and spies everywhere enforcing the whims of the rulers"? Because that is what the question is. And the only real way to enforce this is to raise kids in government approved foster homes. And since "indoctrination" could occur by watching certain TV or internet programs, that too has to be strictly regulated by the agents of the state.

Actually the real motive behind the OP is whether there is any benefit to encouraging religious belief in children. I couldn't think of any. I could however think of cases where this can be harmful.

So setting aside government intrusion, which I'm against anyway, what benefit is there in encouraging religious belief in children?

 

[Skwim]

Of course not. Even if it were illegal, people would do it anyway, I know I would.

Yeah, I pretty much figured you for a law breaker.

​

I go along with SabahTheLoner's "I don't think small children should be forced into religion, but when they are older (not 18 but perhaps 14 or even 12) they can choose their religion or lack thereof."

That said, considering the authority people invest their religion with I can never see this happening.

.

​

.
.​

 

[Nakosis]

I would agree to not allow kids to have contact with religion until they are 18 if they were also not allowed to have any contact or notion of:
- Bad food habits
- Violence
- Social media
- Alcohol
- Drugs
- Tobaco
- Sex, including any variety of porn

If we want to protect children, let's just stop the hypocrisy and be serious about it!

The last four we already have in place. The first one, bad food habit... I had Aunties adding sugar to the milk in the bottles given to my kids. That pissed me off. Would have liked to bring them up on child abuse charges.

Social media and violence, I kind of feel they need exposure to these things with guidance. It's sometimes a crappy world, I feel they're going to need to know how to deal with some of the crap.

 

[Augustus]

Given that religion is just another form of ideology, and that you can't bring up children in an ideologically neutral manner, it's a stupid idea.

Everyone understands the world via narratives/myths that are not objectively true, so drawing some arbitrary line between religious and 'not religious' myths is pretty much unworkable in any intellectually rigorous sense.

Also this is a very stupid argument:

The problem is that it does meaningfully interfere with the world. 911 was a religious-inspired event. So was the evil of the Catholic Inquisition. And so is the quintessential conflict between Palestine and Israel. If you take “God” and “religion” out of all these happenings, you would likely find that they would not have happened at all. Instead, what you’d probably find is peaceful people and communities dedicated to preserving and improving life through reason, science, and technology—which is the essence of transhumanism and the outcome of evolution.

Another person who can't accept that problems are caused by human nature, not through some external corruption of human nature that can be removed and then we'll all live happily ever after.

 

[sun rise]

Actually the real motive behind the OP is whether there is any benefit to encouraging religious belief in children. I couldn't think of any. I could however think of cases where this can be harmful.

So setting aside government intrusion, which I'm against anyway, what benefit is there in encouraging religious belief in children?

The OP mentioned "illegal" several times which is why I framed my earlier post the way it did.

My general attitude is that parents should be honest about their beliefs and let children decide for themselves. I also don't see any problem with exposing children to parent's ethnic background, cultural preferences and so forth.

It did me no harm to attend Seders, learn the blessings of bread and wine, learn the religious history that I was born in and so forth. And that was all due to my atheist Jewish parents wanting me to know about my heritage.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sigh. See what the abuse makes us consider.

I would need a very specific definition of indoctrination before answering the question in the thread title - and even then there would be little point, since it is so difficult to enforce such a decision.

I do however think that awareness of the diversity of beliefs (including disbelief) should be made widespread from an early age, and it should probably be illegal to attempt to hide it.

Also... again, "religion" is perceived as something that people "indoctrinate" into others. Is there a name for a reverse strawman?